20 51. Additionally to the aforementioned, the Guatemalan system for the administration of justice resulted ineffective in guaranteeing compliance of the law and protection of the rights of the victims and their next of kin in almost the totality of the violations committed against human rights during that period of time.66 Thus, the lack of investigation into this type of facts constituted a determining factor in the systematic practice of violations against human rights. * * * 52. Since its first judgment in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez,67 the Court has reiterated that the forced disappearance of persons is a crime of a continuous or permanent nature,68 and of a multiple offense nature, since it not only produces an arbitrary deprivation of freedom, but it puts the personal integrity, safety and the life itself of the detainee in danger. The permanent and multi-offense nature of the forced disappearance of persons is reflected in Articles II and III of the InterAmerican Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which state, in what is relevant, the following: For the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. […]This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined. 53. The Court has established that in view of the nature of the rights violated,69 a forced disappearance constitutes a grave violation of human rights that are nonderogable in character, producing a gross abandonment of the basic principles on which the Inter-American system is based.70 In the present case, besides the forced 66 Cfr. expert opinion offered by Helen Mack Chang during the public hearing before the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights on April 30, 2008. 67 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 20, para. 155; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C. No. 153, paras. 81 through 85; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra noe 17, para. 106. 68 The European Court of Human Rights has also considered forced disappearance a continuous or permanent crime. Loizidou v. Turkey, App. No. 15318/89, 513 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1996). 69 Cfr. Preamble of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which in what is relevant states: CONSIDERING that the forced disappearance of persons of persons violates numerous non-derogable and essential human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 70 Cfr. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 92; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 105; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 118.